Is There Valid Law Authorizing Income Taxes?

[Ron]

Name the false claims?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Ron

Miss B, it can also go to the fact that if you do not view the video then you do not care & thus it is a mute point of discussion.

No that isn't the same as the judge pointing out law & watching a you tube.
If you do not watch the video, you are not going to jail.
If the Judge doesn't know the law, then it could have serious consequences for a person!

I hope you are being silly!

We go to the law. Not to youtube.
You are not honest enough to admit is was a trial by jury and not a bench trial. You also are unable to show the judges ruling. You just hear what the juror said. You also are not honest enough to show the final ruling and legal disposition of this case.

Can't fool me Ron. Like lawyers say. You can always have a jury trial and get lucky with a jury.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Ron, for you to continuously point everyone in the direction of a video instead of explaining the issue in your own words is reminiscent of the judge that the juror claimed wouldn't provide them with the tax law.

If I wanted to watch videos on youtube rather than have a conversation on a forum with real brains behind the posts, then that's what I'd do.

Ergo, when you're asked questions, you should just try to answer them in your own words--especially if its a topic you are familiar with.

What a waste of time.

Ron hides from truth.

there is so incredibly much law, case law and info from the Department of justice.

http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/readingroom/2001ctm/08ctax.htm

In evasion of payment cases, evading or defeating the correct
assessment of the tax is not the issue. Evasion of payment occurs only
after the existence of a tax due and owing has been established, either by
the taxpayer reporting the amount of tax due and owing, by the Internal
Revenue Service examining the taxpayer and assessing the amount of tax
deemed to be due and owing, or by operation of law on the date that the
return is due if the taxpayer fails to file a return and the government can
prove that there was a tax deficiency on that date. See United
States v. Daniel, 956 F.2d 540 (6th Cir. 1992). The taxpayer then seeks
to evade the payment of the taxes assessed as due and owing.3 As in
an attempt to evade and defeat a tax through evasion of assessment, it must
be established in an evasion of payment case that the taxpayer took some
affirmative action. Merely failing to pay assessed taxes, without more,
does not constitute evasion of payment.4 Generally, affirmative
acts associated with evasion of payment involve some type of concealment of
the taxpayer's ability to pay taxes or the removal of assets from the reach
of the Internal Revenue Service.

Historically, it is the crime of willfully attempting to evade and
defeat a tax through evasion of assessment, as opposed to willfully
attempting to evade the payment of a tax, that is the principal revenue
offense. Although the basic elements of the crime are relatively simple,
the proof can be difficult.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.03 ELEMENTS OF EVASION

To establish a violation of section 7201, the following elements must
be proved:

1. An attempt to evade or defeat a tax or the payment
thereof. Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343,
351 (1965); Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492,
498-99 (1943).

2. An additional tax due and owing. Sansone v. United
States, 380 U.S. 343, 351 (1965); Lawn v. United
States, 355 U.S. 339, 361 (1958);

3. Willfulness. Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192,
195 (1991); United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10,
12 (1976); United States v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346,
359 (1973); Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343,
351 (1965); Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121,
139 (1954).

The government must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
United States v. Marashi, 913 F.2d 724, 735 (9th Cir. 1990);
United States v. Williams, 875 F.2d 846, 849 (llth Cir. 1989).

8.01 STATUTORY LANGUAGE: 26 U.S.C. § 7201

8.02 GENERALLY

8.03 ELEMENTS OF EVASION

8.04 ATTEMPT TO EVADE OR DEFEAT
8.04[1] Attempt To Evade Assessment
8.04[2] Attempt To Evade Payment

8.05 ADDITIONAL TAX DUE AND OWING
8.05[1] Generally
8.05[2] Each Year -- Separate Offense
8.05[3] Substantial Tax Deficiency
8.05[4] Method of Accounting
8.05[5] Loss Carryback -- Not a Defense
8.05[6] Methods of Proof
8.05[7] Income Examples

8.06 WILLFULNESS
8.06[1] Definition
8.06[2] Proof of Willfulness
8.06[3] Examples: Proof of Willfulness
8.06[4] Willful Blindness


8.06 WILLFULNESS

8.06[1] Definition

Willfulness has been defined by the courts as a voluntary, intentional
violation of a known legal duty. Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S.
192 (1991); United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10, 12 (1976);
United States v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346, 360 (1973). Therefore, the
taxpayer must be shown to have been aware of his or her obligations under
the tax laws. United States v. Buford, 889 F.2d 1406, 1409 (5th Cir.
1989); United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 875 (9th Cir.
1980); United States v. Peterson, 338 F.2d 595, 598 (7th Cir.
1964). As the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has stated, there must be
"proof that the appellant knew he was violating a 'known legal duty.'"
United States v. Fitzsimmons, 712 F.2d 1196, 1198 (7th Cir. 1983).

willfullness is when uneducated evaders try to hang onto youtube and repeat false claims again and again

Pull up any cases and the rulings list the applicable tax laws.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Ron

Miss B, it can also go to the fact that if you do not view the video then you do not care & thus it is a mute point of discussion.

I'm currently finishing up my lesson for class tonight, and cooking dinner, so I really don't have time to watch the videos. I have managed to get through 2 and the first part of 3, albeit having to pause a lot. I would think you could have just responded with the basic idea, Ron. It has nothing to do with "not caring." Of course I care that the government takes too much of our money. Jeff got a bonus a month or so ago, and if I recall properly, the government took 40% of it, right off the top.

No that isn't the same as the judge pointing out law & watching a you tube.
If you do not watch the video, you are not going to jail.
If the Judge doesn't know the law, then it could have serious consequences for a person!

I hope you are being silly!

You're being silly by not responding to legitimate questions about the topic you started. If you can't really explain it, and need us to watch the video so it can be adequately explained, then just say so.

So far, what I've gathered is that these people feel the corporate tax is legal, but the individual income tax is not, and that neither tax falls under the guidelines for direct or indirect taxation, being that a direct tax must be apportioned, and an indirect tax must be uniform throughout the United States.

I agree that the power the IRS possesses seems astoundingly unchecked and ominous. I just don't see how refusing to pay what they demand is going to help change that. I do see how a refusal to pay can bring harm upon my family, reputation and person.

They are not saying that tax, in general, is illegal. They are saying that the way the law is being currently applied is illegal. (out of line with the Constitution and the 16th Amendment.)

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

YAwn and the ignorance is on your part! Been there done that!

Where is it you have been? Ignorant? Or several years of studying Constitutional Law? No, i am far from ignorant on the topic of the Constitution. There are a lot of topics I may not know much about but Constitutional law isn't one of them.

[Ron]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I'm currently finishing up my lesson for class tonight, and cooking dinner, so I really don't have time to watch the videos. I have managed to get through 2 and the first part of 3, albeit having to pause a lot. I would think you could have just responded with the basic idea, Ron. It has nothing to do with "not caring." Of course I care that the government takes too much of our money. Jeff got a bonus a month or so ago, and if I recall properly, the government took 40% of it, right off the top.



You're being silly by not responding to legitimate questions about the topic you started. If you can't really explain it, and need us to watch the video so it can be adequately explained, then just say so.

So far, what I've gathered is that these people feel the corporate tax is legal, but the individual income tax is not, and that neither tax falls under the guidelines for direct or indirect taxation, being that a direct tax must be apportioned, and an indirect tax must be uniform throughout the United States.

I agree that the power the IRS possesses seems astoundingly unchecked and ominous. I just don't see how refusing to pay what they demand is going to help change that. I do see how a refusal to pay can bring harm upon my family, reputation and person.

They are not saying that tax, in general, is illegal. They are saying that the way the law is being currently applied is illegal. (out of line with the Constitution and the 16th Amendment.)

Miss B, without having watched the whole set of videos you are very astute &
explained it well.

Miss B, I wasn't trying to be mean or rude in saying you didn't view the videos, they do cover a lot of info in the series.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Ron

Miss B, without having watched the whole set of videos you are very astute &
explained it well.

Miss B, I wasn't trying to be mean or rude in saying you didn't view the videos, they do cover a lot of info in the series.

But they don't cover tax law. Youtube isn't case law.



6-4.000 CRIMINAL TAX CASE PROCEDURES
6-4.010 The Federal Tax Enforcement Program
6-4.011 Criminal Tax Manual and Other Tax Division Publications
6-4.110 IRS Administrative Investigations
6-4.120 Grand Jury Investigations -- Generally
6-4.121 IRS Requests to Initiate Grand Jury Investigations
6-4.122 United States Attorney Initiated Grand Jury Investigations
6-4.123 Joint United States Attorney-IRS Request to Expand Tax Grand Jury Investigations
6-4.124 Grand Jury -- Drug Task Force (OCDETF) Requests
6-4.125 IRS Transmittal of Reports and Exhibits from Grand Jury Investigations
6-4.126 Effect of DOJ Termination of Grand Jury Investigation and IRS Access to Grand Jury Material
6-4.130 Search Warrants
6-4.200 Tax Division Jurisdiction and Procedures
6-4.210 Filing False Tax Returns -- Mail Fraud Charges or Mail Fraud Predicates for RICO
6-4.211 Standards of Review
6-4.212 Categories of Matters Reviewed
6-4.213 Review of Direct Referrals
6-4.214 Conferences
6-4.215 Expedited Review
6-4.216 Priority Review
6-4.217 On-Site Review
6-4.218 Authorizations and Declinations
6-4.219 Assistance of Criminal Enforcement Section Personnel
6-4.240 United States Attorney's Responsibilities
6-4.241 Review of CRLs
6-4.242 Recommendation Following a Grand Jury Investigation
6-4.243 Review of Direct Referral Matters
6-4.244 Review of Noncomplex Matters
6-4.245 Request to Decline Prosecution
6-4.246 Request to Dismiss Prosecution
6-4.247 United States Attorney Protest of Declination
6-4.248 Status Reports
6-4.249 Return of Reports and Exhibits
6-4.270 Criminal Division Responsibility
6-4.310 Major Count Policy/Plea Agreements
6-4.311 Application of Major Count Policy in Sentencing Guideline Cases
6-4.320 Nolo Contendere Pleas
6-4.330 Alford Pleas
6-4.340 Sentencing
6-4.350 Costs of Prosecution
6-4.360 Compromise of Criminal Liability/Civil Settlement


some more legal info over your head.

[jwharv]

The 16th Amendment

Under the Constitution, Congress could impose direct taxes only if they were levied in proportion to each State's population. Thus, when a flat rate Federal income tax was enacted in 1894, it was quickly challenged and in 1895 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional because it was a direct tax not apportioned according to the population of each state.

Lacking the revenue from an income tax and with all other forms of internal taxes facing stiff resistance, from 1896 until 1910 the Federal government relied heavily on high tariffs for its revenues. The War Revenue Act of 1899 sought to raise funds for the Spanish-American War through the sale of bonds, taxes on recreational facilities used by workers, and doubled taxes on beer and tobacco. A tax was even imposed on chewing gum. The Act expired in 1902, so that Federal receipts fell from 1.7 percent of Gross Domestic Product to 1.3 percent.

While the War Revenue Act returned to traditional revenue sources following the Supreme Court's 1895 ruling on the income tax, debate on alternative revenue sources remained lively. The nation was becoming increasingly aware that high tariffs and excise taxes were not sound economic policy and often fell disproportionately on the less affluent. Proposals to reinstate the income tax were introduced by Congressmen from agricultural areas whose constituents feared a Federal tax on property, especially on land, as a replacement for the excises.

Eventually, the income tax debate pitted southern and western Members of Congress representing more agricultural and rural areas against the industrial northeast. The debate resulted in an agreement calling for a tax, called an excise tax, to be imposed on business income, and a Constitutional amendment to allow the Federal government to impose tax on individuals' lawful incomes without regard to the population of each State.

By 1913, 36 States had ratified the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. In October, Congress passed a new income tax law with rates beginning at 1 percent and rising to 7 percent for taxpayers with income in excess of $500,000. Less than 1 percent of the population paid income tax at the time. Form 1040 was introduced as the standard tax reporting form and, though changed in many ways over the years, remains in use today.

One of the problems with the new income tax law was how to define "lawful" income. Congress addressed this problem by amending the law in 1916 by deleting the word "lawful" from the definition of income. As a result, all income became subject to tax, even if it was earned by illegal means. Several years later, the Supreme Court declared the Fifth Amendment could not be used by bootleggers and others who earned income through illegal activities to avoid paying taxes. Consequently, many who broke various laws associated with illegal activities and were able to escape justice for these crimes were incarcerated on tax evasion charges.

Prior to the enactment of the income tax, most citizens were able to pursue their private economic affairs without the direct knowledge of the government. Individuals earned their wages, businesses earned their profits, and wealth was accumulated and dispensed with little or no interaction with government entities. The income tax fundamentally changed this relationship, giving the government the right and the need to know about all manner of an individual or business' economic life. Congress recognized the inherent invasiveness of the income tax into the taxpayer's personal affairs and so in 1916 it provided citizens with some degree of protection by requiring that information from tax returns be kept confidential.

[Ron]

Below is an excerpt from a web site that has the rest of the article posted.
Due to copy write laws in regards to forum usage not all can be posted here.
On the bottom is the link.


Bill Benson's findings, published in "The Law That Never Was," make a convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913. What follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not have been counted.

The 16th amendment had been sent out in 1909 to the state governors for ratification by the state legislatures after having been passed by Congress. There were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. The process took almost the whole term of the Taft administration, from 1909 to 1913.

Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states.





http://www.givemeliberty.org/feature...otratified.htm

[Ron]

Below a link to a US Court ruling in Illinois on the 16th Ammendment!

A legal document.

BTW, they look just like the court documents in Canada.



http://74.6.146.244/search/cache?ei=...icp=1&.intl=ca